The British will become obdurate and stoical, with a dash of quiet nationalism. The Blitz Spirit.
The champagne populist Brexiteers are more likely to display the spirit of the Ritz, causing revulsion and rebellion against British identity itself in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
You dont speak for all Scots. My wife is one of the many from the North East Fishing communities who want out of the EU and considers herself Scots and British
Over one million scots voted brexit plus the one sided pro EU propaganda from the government and all parties in Scotland helped the remain win.
Just imagine some fairness up there and we could have seen a closer result.
Marvellous the amount of expertise on Scotland that resides outside Scotland.
This thread appears to have been populated by people who will never have a girlfriend.
(Joke)
Just take a minute to look at the banner at the top of the page...
Xero Accounting Software ?
xm.com forex for me ...
Back to Christmas in ridiculous places. Currently in Karachi. Hotel has installed the Christmas tree, the snowy Christmas village with steam train, and flying Santa in a sled pulled by reindeer some 10' above the village. And three musicians singing religious carols to a drum machine.
The problem with proposing Keir Starmer as leader is, yes, everybody's looking out for a Labour figure who is bright, has a chance to develop some sort of public profile, and is at least halfway competent - but they're forgetting what an awful job he has been landed with. Starmer's role as Shadow Brexit Secretary is, essentially, to try to sell soft Brexit to the public - a halfway house option, chosen to try to stop the Labour Party and its voter coalition from disintegrating, but which has the distinct disadvantage of (a) pleasing no-one and (b) arguably being impossible to achieve in any event.
A soft Brexit deal, containing a compromise on single market access in exchange for a compromise on immigration, is most unlikely to be made available because of the EU's intransigence with regard to the Four Freedoms. This leaves the only two likely end states for the UK's relationship with the EU as something very like the Norway model (EFTA/EEA, which is likely to emerge as the Liberal Democrat fallback position if and when A50 is eventually triggered, and accepted to be irreversible;) or full withdrawal from most of the EU's structures, including the single market, customs union, and the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The former position will look to most voters like Remain in all but name, which will best satisfy strong Remain voters but outrage strong Leave voters; the latter position will have the opposite effect.
By fence-sitting, Starmer will simply be attacked for not being pro-EU enough by the Lib Dems, for defying the will of the people by the Tories and Ukip, and for proposing fantasy solutions that do not exist by both. He risks looking weak, dithering and dishonest. Not a strong position from which to launch a leadership bid.
We all understand why Starmer is walking this particular tightrope - to try to stop the party and its voter coalition from falling apart over Europe - but realistically this task looks virtually hopeless. Labour is arguably divided into four factions - Far Left, Soft Left, Blue Labour and Centrist - according to the attitudes of these groups to the role of the state and of the free market; identity and immigration; social liberalism; the European project; and global affair
SNIP ...
.
Possible. It depends whether a proportion of Leavers will think compromise with the EU will be necessary. Remainers who have accepted the result do think compromise is necessary. By and large Leavers don't think it necessary because they don't see risks and downsides to Brexit. The tyre hasn't hit the road yet though. I detect a fragile confidence in the success of Brexit amongst Leavers. The moment you start blaming others for thwarting your project is the moment you accept your project has failed.
All in all, this points to Starmer being on the money. But you're right. It does depend on how Leavers see it.
The British will become obdurate and stoical, with a dash of quiet nationalism. The Blitz Spirit.
The champagne populist Brexiteers are more likely to display the spirit of the Ritz, causing revulsion and rebellion against British identity itself in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
You dont speak for all Scots. My wife is one of the many from the North East Fishing communities who want out of the EU and considers herself Scots and British
Over one million scots voted brexit plus the one sided pro EU propaganda from the government and all parties in Scotland helped the remain win.
Just imagine some fairness up there and we could have seen a closer result.
Marvellous the amount of expertise on Scotland that resides outside Scotland.
There are over one million Scots living in Scotland who want to leave and some of them are our close family
The British will become obdurate and stoical, with a dash of quiet nationalism. The Blitz Spirit.
The champagne populist Brexiteers are more likely to display the spirit of the Ritz, causing revulsion and rebellion against British identity itself in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
You dont speak for all Scots. My wife is one of the many from the North East Fishing communities who want out of the EU and considers herself Scots and British
Over one million scots voted brexit plus the one sided pro EU propaganda from the government and all parties in Scotland helped the remain win.
Just imagine some fairness up there and we could have seen a closer result.
Marvellous the amount of expertise on Scotland that resides outside Scotland.
There are over one million Scots living in Scotland who want to leave and some of them are our close family
About one third of SNP voters supported Leave, I think. About the same as UK Labour supporters and less than Labour supporters in Scotland.
Who does more damage to Western democracy - the Russians or the sore losers who excuse their own failures by blaming Russian interference?
These will be the same Russian hackers who are accused of fixing the US election by the obviously misnamed Democrats over there.
As Obama himself said in an interview yesterday, Russians have been trying to influence US elections for decades, there was no evidence of anything more than propaganda though - the election process itself was all above board (even if it did take them ages to finish counting!!).
My wife's cousin has always been a strong member of the SNP but absolutely rejects Sturgeon's position on this and indeed on independence.
So what exactly is their motivation for always having been a 'strong' member of the SNP?
He is a very respected life long member of SNP but rejects their pro EU stance and sees ties with UK trade more important than the EU or Independence
X has always been a strong member of UKIP but absolutely rejects Farage's position on Brexit, and sees ties with EU trade as more important than the UK or UK sovereignty.
Who does more damage to Western democracy - the Russians or the sore losers who excuse their own failures by blaming Russian interference?
These will be the same Russian hackers who are accused of fixing the US election by the obviously misnamed Democrats over there.
As Obama himself said in an interview yesterday, Russians have been trying to influence US elections for decades, there was no evidence of anything more than propaganda though - the election process itself was all above board (even if it did take them ages to finish counting!!).
They haven't finished yet.
I *think* it will be just past the new year now, which makes the 1.01 on Clinton PV exceptional value.
My wife's cousin has always been a strong member of the SNP but absolutely rejects Sturgeon's position on this and indeed on independence.
So what exactly is their motivation for always having been a 'strong' member of the SNP?
He is a very respected life long member of SNP but rejects their pro EU stance and sees ties with UK trade more important than the EU or Independence
X has always been a strong member of UKIP but absolutely rejects Farage's position on Brexit, and sees ties with EU trade as more important than the UK or UK sovereignty.
X is a self deceiving idiot.
I hope you are not referring to my wife's cousin - he is one of the most intelligent and intense persons I have met and also an incredibly successful fishermen. You cannot win an argument by being insulting
Who does more damage to Western democracy - the Russians or the sore losers who excuse their own failures by blaming Russian interference?
These will be the same Russian hackers who are accused of fixing the US election by the obviously misnamed Democrats over there.
As Obama himself said in an interview yesterday, Russians have been trying to influence US elections for decades, there was no evidence of anything more than propaganda though - the election process itself was all above board (even if it did take them ages to finish counting!!).
They haven't finished yet.
I *think* it will be just past the new year now, which makes the 1.01 on Clinton PV exceptional value.
I'm not sure I'd ever describe 1.01 as 'exceptional' value more than a day or two ahead.
That actually makes me think that it should be possible to find these 1.01 prices in a lot of places, for results that are basically foregone conclusions. I wonder if one started a year with a float of say £100k they could double their money 1% at a time, over a year, without screwing it up and zeroing out?
Possible. It depends whether a proportion of Leavers will think compromise with the EU will be necessary. Remainers who have accepted the result do think compromise is necessary. By and large Leavers don't think it necessary because they don't see risks and downsides to Brexit. The tyre hasn't hit the road yet though. I detect a fragile confidence in the success of Brexit amongst Leavers. The moment you start blaming others for thwarting your project is the moment you accept your project has failed.
All in all, this points to Starmer being on the money. But you're right. It does depend on how Leavers see it.
Problems with this analysis: firstly, as I said before, I doubt that the particular compromise that Starmer is trying to advocate is deliverable in practice. Membership of the single market and controls on immigration appear to be two mutually exclusive concepts. Secondly, FWIW, I don't think that this would help Labour anyway. Some pragmatic Leavers will either be willing to put up with a Norway compromise or be positively pleased with it, but the most important motivating factors for the Leave vote were sovereignty and immigration - and this is liable to be particularly the case amongst struggling Leavers (i.e. disproportionately those who would've voted Labour in the past) who already have relatively little to lose in economic terms. They will expect Leave to mean Leave, and in particular they will expect uncontrolled influxes of EU citizens to be stopped.
I believe that nervousness amongst some Leave voters about the consequences of EU withdrawal revolves mainly around economic performance and jobs. If you are hard-up to begin with, don't have a particularly good job, and feel that you are up against competition from workers from low wage EU countries if you are looking for work, then you're presumably much more likely to retain your enthusiasm for getting out of the EU regardless of whether the process of leaving is smooth or not. We should also avoid making the automatic assumption that any bumps in the road will be blamed primarily on the UK Government, rather than on the behaviour of the EU.
Therefore, I still don't see how Labour reconciles the two diametrically opposed positions to the EU amongst its voter base. A large chunk of the old core vote wants rid of it, is really pleased with the referendum result, and wishes to see it implemented in full; yet much of the liberal left is distraught to be leaving. If Labour doesn't want to lose the loyalty of both sides, then presumably it is going to have to back one of them in the end?
My wife's cousin has always been a strong member of the SNP but absolutely rejects Sturgeon's position on this and indeed on independence.
So what exactly is their motivation for always having been a 'strong' member of the SNP?
He is a very respected life long member of SNP but rejects their pro EU stance and sees ties with UK trade more important than the EU or Independence
X has always been a strong member of UKIP but absolutely rejects Farage's position on Brexit, and sees ties with EU trade as more important than the UK or UK sovereignty.
X is a self deceiving idiot.
Soft Sindys.
I wonder how many of the 44% fall into that number.
My wife's cousin has always been a strong member of the SNP but absolutely rejects Sturgeon's position on this and indeed on independence.
So what exactly is their motivation for always having been a 'strong' member of the SNP?
He is a very respected life long member of SNP but rejects their pro EU stance and sees ties with UK trade more important than the EU or Independence
X has always been a strong member of UKIP but absolutely rejects Farage's position on Brexit, and sees ties with EU trade as more important than the UK or UK sovereignty.
X is a self deceiving idiot.
I hope you are not referring to my wife's cousin - he is one of the most intelligent and intense persons I have met and also an incredibly successful fishermen. You cannot win an argument by being insulting
X is imaginary. I haven't a clue who you are let alone your wife's cousin.
Some anonymous bloke on the internet bringing up an anecdotal anonymous cousin barely makes it as an argument, let alone a credible one.
Who does more damage to Western democracy - the Russians or the sore losers who excuse their own failures by blaming Russian interference?
These will be the same Russian hackers who are accused of fixing the US election by the obviously misnamed Democrats over there.
As Obama himself said in an interview yesterday, Russians have been trying to influence US elections for decades, there was no evidence of anything more than propaganda though - the election process itself was all above board (even if it did take them ages to finish counting!!).
They haven't finished yet.
I *think* it will be just past the new year now, which makes the 1.01 on Clinton PV exceptional value.
I'm not sure I'd ever describe 1.01 as 'exceptional' value more than a day or two ahead.
That actually makes me think that it should be possible to find these 1.01 prices in a lot of places, for results that are basically foregone conclusions. I wonder if one started a year with a float of say £100k they could double their money 1% at a time, over a year?
Wouldn't that depend on being able to turn your money around quickly? i.e. on knowing before you tie up your money with each of the bets how soon the outcome will be acknowledged as settled by the betting company and getting paid quickly thereafter.
Sir Keir Starmer, Labour leader - I can't see it. He's everything that Labour is against. It's very hard to see why we need to call him Sir Kier after all - tucking up Chris Huhne? To defend such a thing against a hostile press would be awkward.
Mind you as he's only a knight of the realm he may be too shabby for the likes of McCluskey to hobnob with anyway.
Labour has to fracture soon. It's too daft to be a proper party now.
If we get Farage launching something too then we'll get two new parties. That surely must be an enormous opportunity for Farron and the LDs. So I expect they'll split too in those circumstances just to maintain the tradition.
Who does more damage to Western democracy - the Russians or the sore losers who excuse their own failures by blaming Russian interference?
These will be the same Russian hackers who are accused of fixing the US election by the obviously misnamed Democrats over there.
As Obama himself said in an interview yesterday, Russians have been trying to influence US elections for decades, there was no evidence of anything more than propaganda though - the election process itself was all above board (even if it did take them ages to finish counting!!).
They haven't finished yet.
I *think* it will be just past the new year now, which makes the 1.01 on Clinton PV exceptional value.
I'm not sure I'd ever describe 1.01 as 'exceptional' value more than a day or two ahead.
That actually makes me think that it should be possible to find these 1.01 prices in a lot of places, for results that are basically foregone conclusions. I wonder if one started a year with a float of say £100k they could double their money 1% at a time, over a year, without screwing it up and zeroing out?
You need to find 70 1.01 shots in a row. This one is actually more certain than an asteroid not hitting the earth tommorow though.
My wife's cousin has always been a strong member of the SNP but absolutely rejects Sturgeon's position on this and indeed on independence.
So what exactly is their motivation for always having been a 'strong' member of the SNP?
He is a very respected life long member of SNP but rejects their pro EU stance and sees ties with UK trade more important than the EU or Independence
X has always been a strong member of UKIP but absolutely rejects Farage's position on Brexit, and sees ties with EU trade as more important than the UK or UK sovereignty.
X is a self deceiving idiot.
I hope you are not referring to my wife's cousin - he is one of the most intelligent and intense persons I have met and also an incredibly successful fishermen. You cannot win an argument by being insulting
X is imaginary. I haven't a clue who you are let alone your wife's cousin.
Some anonymous bloke on the internet bringing up an anecdotal anonymous cousin barely makes it as an argument, let alone a credible one.
Well there are other pro-Brexit SNP-ers - malcolmg for one, I think. All parties contain a variety of views on most subjects, and Brexit is far from a settled issue amongst the membership of any party (well, maybe some of the NI ones...).
My wife's cousin has always been a strong member of the SNP but absolutely rejects Sturgeon's position on this and indeed on independence.
So what exactly is their motivation for always having been a 'strong' member of the SNP?
He is a very respected life long member of SNP but rejects their pro EU stance and sees ties with UK trade more important than the EU or Independence
X has always been a strong member of UKIP but absolutely rejects Farage's position on Brexit, and sees ties with EU trade as more important than the UK or UK sovereignty.
X is a self deceiving idiot.
I hope you are not referring to my wife's cousin - he is one of the most intelligent and intense persons I have met and also an incredibly successful fishermen. You cannot win an argument by being insulting
X is imaginary. I haven't a clue who you are let alone your wife's cousin.
Some anonymous bloke on the internet bringing up an anecdotal anonymous cousin barely makes it as an argument, let alone a credible one.
Go and canvas opinion in the North East fishing communities on the EU and you will find a majority for leave
Who does more damage to Western democracy - the Russians or the sore losers who excuse their own failures by blaming Russian interference?
These will be the same Russian hackers who are accused of fixing the US election by the obviously misnamed Democrats over there.
As Obama himself said in an interview yesterday, Russians have been trying to influence US elections for decades, there was no evidence of anything more than propaganda though - the election process itself was all above board (even if it did take them ages to finish counting!!).
They haven't finished yet.
I *think* it will be just past the new year now, which makes the 1.01 on Clinton PV exceptional value.
I'm not sure I'd ever describe 1.01 as 'exceptional' value more than a day or two ahead.
That actually makes me think that it should be possible to find these 1.01 prices in a lot of places, for results that are basically foregone conclusions. I wonder if one started a year with a float of say £100k they could double their money 1% at a time, over a year?
Wouldn't that depend on being able to turn your money around quickly? i.e. on knowing before you tie up your money with each of the bets how soon the outcome will be acknowledged as settled by the betting company and getting paid quickly thereafter.
Correct. Letting something sit for a week or two would screw you up, would have to be a day or two at most.
It should be possible in sports to turn over very quickly, e.g. Football match where one team is 4-0 up with a minute of injury time to play. I wonder if @iSam has done something similar, he's said here before that his syndicate spend high five figures on the football every Saturday.
Of course, statistically one in a hundred correctly-priced 1/100 shots will screw up too!
Who does more damage to Western democracy - the Russians or the sore losers who excuse their own failures by blaming Russian interference?
These will be the same Russian hackers who are accused of fixing the US election by the obviously misnamed Democrats over there.
As Obama himself said in an interview yesterday, Russians have been trying to influence US elections for decades, there was no evidence of anything more than propaganda though - the election process itself was all above board (even if it did take them ages to finish counting!!).
They haven't finished yet.
I *think* it will be just past the new year now, which makes the 1.01 on Clinton PV exceptional value.
I'm not sure I'd ever describe 1.01 as 'exceptional' value more than a day or two ahead.
That actually makes me think that it should be possible to find these 1.01 prices in a lot of places, for results that are basically foregone conclusions. I wonder if one started a year with a float of say £100k they could double their money 1% at a time, over a year?
Wouldn't that depend on being able to turn your money around quickly? i.e. on knowing before you tie up your money with each of the bets how soon the outcome will be acknowledged as settled by the betting company and getting paid quickly thereafter.
Correct. Letting something sit for a week or two would screw you up, would have to be a day or two at most.
It should be possible in sports to turn over very quickly, e.g. Football match where one team is 4-0 up with a minute of injury time to play. I wonder if @iSam has done something similar, he's said here before that his syndicate spend high five figures on the football every Saturday.
Of course, statistically one in a hundred correctly-priced 1/100 shots will screw up too!
4-0 up with a minute left in injury time, the 1.01 won't be available - for sure.
Most 1.01 sports bets do actually have a small element of possible failure though. In tennis for instance I believe you're generally better off laying the 1.01s rather than backing. This bet doesn't.
My wife's cousin has always been a strong member of the SNP but absolutely rejects Sturgeon's position on this and indeed on independence.
So what exactly is their motivation for always having been a 'strong' member of the SNP?
He is a very respected life long member of SNP but rejects their pro EU stance and sees ties with UK trade more important than the EU or Independence
X has always been a strong member of UKIP but absolutely rejects Farage's position on Brexit, and sees ties with EU trade as more important than the UK or UK sovereignty.
X is a self deceiving idiot.
I hope you are not referring to my wife's cousin - he is one of the most intelligent and intense persons I have met and also an incredibly successful fishermen. You cannot win an argument by being insulting
X is imaginary. I haven't a clue who you are let alone your wife's cousin.
Some anonymous bloke on the internet bringing up an anecdotal anonymous cousin barely makes it as an argument, let alone a credible one.
Go and canvas opinion in the North East fishing communities on the EU and you will find a majority for leave
But still not enough to persuade a single Scottish local authority area. How frustrating.
My wife's cousin has always been a strong member of the SNP but absolutely rejects Sturgeon's position on this and indeed on independence.
So what exactly is their motivation for always having been a 'strong' member of the SNP?
He is a very respected life long member of SNP but rejects their pro EU stance and sees ties with UK trade more important than the EU or Independence
X has always been a strong member of UKIP but absolutely rejects Farage's position on Brexit, and sees ties with EU trade as more important than the UK or UK sovereignty.
X is a self deceiving idiot.
I hope you are not referring to my wife's cousin - he is one of the most intelligent and intense persons I have met and also an incredibly successful fishermen. You cannot win an argument by being insulting
X is imaginary. I haven't a clue who you are let alone your wife's cousin.
Some anonymous bloke on the internet bringing up an anecdotal anonymous cousin barely makes it as an argument, let alone a credible one.
Well there are other pro-Brexit SNP-ers - malcolmg for one, I think. All parties contain a variety of views on most subjects, and Brexit is far from a settled issue amongst the membership of any party (well, maybe some of the NI ones...).
Sure, there are multiple views and motivations in all parties. I hesitate to speak for malcolmg, but I seem to recall one of his motivations in the EU vote was sticking it right up Cameron & Osborne. On that basis he got some pretty major bangs for his voting buck.
Had to laugh seeing Kanye at Trump Tower. Those on twitter who are surprised about this are incredibly naive. Kanye has become a gradually more odd figure in these last five years or so.
On Russia: it appears that Graham and McCain, those renowned Democrats are concerned about Russian influence in the US Presidential Election. Although I know that for many Trump supporters, it's not legitimate to oppose him from the right or the left. Meanwhile, I see he is filling his cabinet with CEOs, and those from Goldman Sachs. So that swamp is definitely being drained then.
Watching Trump surrogates in the media - particularly on CNN - Kayleigh McEnany, Jeffery Lord etc - defend his choices should certainly be interesting in these coming years.
As a point of reference - BMG found a sample that most resembled the actual result in Scotland for the EU referendum.
Among Sindy voters, EU 'Remain' won 59-41. That was a weaker showing than the unionist vote which was 64-36 for Remain.
That's a sizeable set of Sindys who see membership of the EU as inconsistent with Scottish independence though, and the unionists aren't siding with Sturgeon on Scotland/UK. She would appear to be better off just leaving the whole thing alone.
My wife's cousin has always been a strong member of the SNP but absolutely rejects Sturgeon's position on this and indeed on independence.
So what exactly is their motivation for always having been a 'strong' member of the SNP?
He is a very respected life long member of SNP but rejects their pro EU stance and sees ties with UK trade more important than the EU or Independence
X has always been a strong member of UKIP but absolutely rejects Farage's position on Brexit, and sees ties with EU trade as more important than the UK or UK sovereignty.
X is a self deceiving idiot.
I hope you are not referring to my wife's cousin - he is one of the most intelligent and intense persons I have met and also an incredibly successful fishermen. You cannot win an argument by being insulting
X is imaginary. I haven't a clue who you are let alone your wife's cousin.
Some anonymous bloke on the internet bringing up an anecdotal anonymous cousin barely makes it as an argument, let alone a credible one.
Go and canvas opinion in the North East fishing communities on the EU and you will find a majority for leave
But still not enough to persuade a single Scottish local authority area. How frustrating.
You may be very surprised - watch Banff and Buchan
Who does more damage to Western democracy - the Russians or the sore losers who excuse their own failures by blaming Russian interference?
These will be the same Russian hackers who are accused of fixing the US election by the obviously misnamed Democrats over there.
As Obama himself said in an interview yesterday, Russians have been trying to influence US elections for decades, there was no evidence of anything more than propaganda though - the election process itself was all above board (even if it did take them ages to finish counting!!).
They haven't finished yet.
I *think* it will be just past the new year now, which makes the 1.01 on Clinton PV exceptional value.
I'm not sure I'd ever describe 1.01 as 'exceptional' value more than a day or two ahead.
That actually makes me think that it should be possible to find these 1.01 prices in a lot of places, for results that are basically foregone conclusions. I wonder if one started a year with a float of say £100k they could double their money 1% at a time, over a year?
Wouldn't that depend on being able to turn your money around quickly? i.e. on knowing before you tie up your money with each of the bets how soon the outcome will be acknowledged as settled by the betting company and getting paid quickly thereafter.
Correct. Letting something sit for a week or two would screw you up, would have to be a day or two at most.
It should be possible in sports to turn over very quickly, e.g. Football match where one team is 4-0 up with a minute of injury time to play. I wonder if @iSam has done something similar, he's said here before that his syndicate spend high five figures on the football every Saturday.
Of course, statistically one in a hundred correctly-priced 1/100 shots will screw up too!
4-0 up with a minute left in injury time, the 1.01 won't be available - for sure.
Most 1.01 sports bets do actually have a small element of possible failure though. In tennis for instance I believe you're generally better off laying the 1.01s rather than backing. This bet doesn't.
I might do a dummy run on this with next weekend's sport, see how it goes!
The difficulties would be finding sufficient liquidity at the right time, having the balls to stick to the 1.01 or 1.02 strategy (no 1.05 or 1.1 'dead certs', 'cos doing that WILL kill you) and of course finding the £100k float in the first place - no point doing it with any less, you'd need to be on it full time.
I *think* it will be just past the new year now, which makes the 1.01 on Clinton PV exceptional value.
I'm not sure I'd ever describe 1.01 as 'exceptional' value more than a day or two ahead.
That actually makes me think that it should be possible to find these 1.01 prices in a lot of places, for results that are basically foregone conclusions. I wonder if one started a year with a float of say £100k they could double their money 1% at a time, over a year?
Wouldn't that depend on being able to turn your money around quickly? i.e. on knowing before you tie up your money with each of the bets how soon the outcome will be acknowledged as settled by the betting company and getting paid quickly thereafter.
Correct. Letting something sit for a week or two would screw you up, would have to be a day or two at most.
It should be possible in sports to turn over very quickly, e.g. Football match where one team is 4-0 up with a minute of injury time to play. I wonder if @iSam has done something similar, he's said here before that his syndicate spend high five figures on the football every Saturday.
Of course, statistically one in a hundred correctly-priced 1/100 shots will screw up too!
4-0 up with a minute left in injury time, the 1.01 won't be available - for sure.
Most 1.01 sports bets do actually have a small element of possible failure though. In tennis for instance I believe you're generally better off laying the 1.01s rather than backing. This bet doesn't.
I might do a dummy run on this with next weekend's sport, see how it goes!
The difficulties would be finding sufficient liquidity at the right time, having the balls to stick to the 1.01 or 1.02 strategy (no 1.05 or 1.1 'dead certs', 'cos doing that WILL kill you) and of course finding the £100k float in the first place - no point doing it with any less, you'd need to be on it full time.
An interesting thought experiment.
Hmm. Interesting.
Probably best to run the model on betfair's historical data.
If you've got an edge over the stats guys then it can be quite profitable. A lot of people think they do. Very few actually do.
I don't see how what happens at Unite makes that much difference, Labour members have just given Corbyn a renewed mandate and I see no non-Corbynista having a chance of getting the leadership, at least until after the next general election
Had to laugh seeing Kanye at Trump Tower. Those on twitter who are surprised about this are incredibly naive. Kanye has become a gradually more odd figure in these last five years or so.
On Russia: it appears that Graham and McCain, those renowned Democrats are concerned about Russian influence in the US Presidential Election. Although I know that for many Trump supporters, it's not legitimate to oppose him from the right or the left. Meanwhile, I see he is filling his cabinet with CEOs, and those from Goldman Sachs. So that swamp is definitely being drained then.
Watching Trump surrogates in the media - particularly on CNN - Kayleigh McEnany, Jeffery Lord etc - defend his choices should certainly be interesting in these coming years.
Trump was never really anti Wall Street, that was Sanders. What he was was pro border controls, pro tariff, anti outsourcing and pro Putin
Wouldn't that depend on being able to turn your money around quickly? i.e. on knowing before you tie up your money with each of the bets how soon the outcome will be acknowledged as settled by the betting company and getting paid quickly thereafter.
Correct. Letting something sit for a week or two would screw you up, would have to be a day or two at most.
It should be possible in sports to turn over very quickly, e.g. Football match where one team is 4-0 up with a minute of injury time to play. I wonder if @iSam has done something similar, he's said here before that his syndicate spend high five figures on the football every Saturday.
Of course, statistically one in a hundred correctly-priced 1/100 shots will screw up too!
4-0 up with a minute left in injury time, the 1.01 won't be available - for sure.
Most 1.01 sports bets do actually have a small element of possible failure though. In tennis for instance I believe you're generally better off laying the 1.01s rather than backing. This bet doesn't.
I might do a dummy run on this with next weekend's sport, see how it goes!
The difficulties would be finding sufficient liquidity at the right time, having the balls to stick to the 1.01 or 1.02 strategy (no 1.05 or 1.1 'dead certs', 'cos doing that WILL kill you) and of course finding the £100k float in the first place - no point doing it with any less, you'd need to be on it full time.
An interesting thought experiment.
Hmm. Interesting.
Probably best to run the model on betfair's historical data.
If you've got an edge over the stats guys then it can be quite profitable. A lot of people think they do. Very few actually do.
Wow, just went digging on Betfair apps and found the historical data app - never knew that existed, taking a look through that will be easier than dummy playing live sport for half of Saturday!
As you say there's a lot of pro stats guys that will try and do the same, with big brains and big spreadsheets - but would I be playing against them or playing with them against all the other mugs out there?
All moot really though, as I don't have £100k burning a hole in the bank account right now, and if I did I'd pay off the mortgage with it!
On topic. Keir Starmer will not be the next labour leader. 1) The leader is elected through OMOV, Corbyn will not change this. 2) The membership are emphatically pro left, pro Corbyn. Even after the attempts by the right to fix the last election by limiting the selectorate, Corbyn still won emphatically. 3) The trade union leadership supports Corbyn, the trade union members who are active also support Corbyn. 4) In my experience the Corbynites by and large don't accept defeat, they just try and blame other people for sabotaging their project. This is pretty much inbuilt in to the psychology of the hard left. There are some exceptions of course, but my general experience is that in changing their views people abandon the psychology of the hard left entirely and become moderates but this is something that happens individually and not en masse.
Starmer is unlikely to be acceptable to the Corbynites. He is an establishment figure. The next labour leader, of the list above, would be either John McDonnell, Clive Lewis or Emily Thornberry, they are affilliated to Corbyn.
A better bet would be simply on the wholesale decline of the labour party given the current dynamics within the party, ie less than 20% of the vote share as mentioned yesterday
I don't know what Ben Bradshaw's evidence is, but I would be surprised if Russia's propaganda machine was not active, both in Brexit and in Sindy.
Russia wants to see the destabilisation, if not the breakup, of the UK, of the EU, and of NATO.
By what mechanism Russia acts, who knows. The list of Putin fans is long and seems to be growing: Trump, Farage, Corbyn. But are they sympathisers, stooges or worse? And I recall recently seeing that Pravda was planning to open operations in Scotland of all places. Not difficult to reason why.
A friend with contacts in the intelligence service tells me that Aaron Banks may have some interesting connections...
Starmer strikes me as being on the wrong side of history as far as Brexit goes with the voters, even if he stirs up discontent amongst sof and hard brexiteers in the government.
Watch the Red Brexiteers, Burnham and Benn have both been making noises about immigration and pro-intervention in industry. That is pretty Old Labour, and something that returns full circle to Keir Hardie rather than Kier Starmer!
I don't think it will be either of those two, but that is the way the wind is blowing. I think Jezza will stick around too long for me to take a dip in this market.
On topic. Keir Starmer will not be the next labour leader. 1) The leader is elected through OMOV, Corbyn will not change this. 2) The membership are emphatically pro left, pro Corbyn. Even after the attempts by the right to fix the last election by limiting the selectorate, Corbyn still won emphatically. 3) The trade union leadership supports Corbyn, the trade union members who are active also support Corbyn. 4) In my experience the Corbynites by and large don't accept defeat, they just try and blame other people for sabotaging their project. This is pretty much inbuilt in to the psychology of the hard left. There are some exceptions of course, but my general experience is that in changing their views people abandon the psychology of the hard left entirely and become moderates but this is something that happens individually and not en masse.
Starmer is unlikely to be acceptable to the Corbynites. He is an establishment figure. The next labour leader, of the list above, would be either John McDonnell, Clive Lewis or Emily Thornberry, they are affilliated to Corbyn.
A better bet would be simply on the wholesale decline of the labour party given the current dynamics within the party, ie less than 20% of the vote share as mentioned yesterday
McDonnell or Thornberry yes, after Lewis backed Trident he is no longer fully in the Corbyn camp
I don't know what Ben Bradshaw's evidence is, but I would be surprised if Russia's propaganda machine was not active, both in Brexit and in Sindy.
Russia wants to see the destabilisation, if not the breakup, of the UK, of the EU, and of NATO.
By what mechanism Russia acts, who knows. The list of Putin fans is long and seems to be growing: Trump, Farage, Corbyn. But are they sympathisers, stooges or worse? And I recall recently seeing that Pravda was planning to open operations in Scotland of all places. Not difficult to reason why.
A friend with contacts in the intelligence service tells me that Aaron Banks may have some interesting connections...
Quite right. You'd have to be naive verging on the half-witted to think that Russia hadn't attempted to help bring about Scottish independence and Brexit. The only questions are: how much effort did they put in and did it make a difference?
On topic. Keir Starmer will not be the next labour leader. 1) The leader is elected through OMOV, Corbyn will not change this. 2) The membership are emphatically pro left, pro Corbyn. Even after the attempts by the right to fix the last election by limiting the selectorate, Corbyn still won emphatically. 3) The trade union leadership supports Corbyn, the trade union members who are active also support Corbyn. 4) In my experience the Corbynites by and large don't accept defeat, they just try and blame other people for sabotaging their project. This is pretty much inbuilt in to the psychology of the hard left. There are some exceptions of course, but my general experience is that in changing their views people abandon the psychology of the hard left entirely and become moderates but this is something that happens individually and not en masse.
Starmer is unlikely to be acceptable to the Corbynites. He is an establishment figure. The next labour leader, of the list above, would be either John McDonnell, Clive Lewis or Emily Thornberry, they are affilliated to Corbyn.
A better bet would be simply on the wholesale decline of the labour party given the current dynamics within the party, ie less than 20% of the vote share as mentioned yesterday
McDonnell or Thornberry yes, after Lewis backed Trident he is no longer fully in the Corbyn camp
Thornberry would probably be the best bet for Labour because she'd be more capable of getting under the Tories' skin than anyone else in the party.
On topic. Keir Starmer will not be the next labour leader. 1) The leader is elected through OMOV, Corbyn will not change this. 2) The membership are emphatically pro left, pro Corbyn. Even after the attempts by the right to fix the last election by limiting the selectorate, Corbyn still won emphatically. 3) The trade union leadership supports Corbyn, the trade union members who are active also support Corbyn. 4) In my experience the Corbynites by and large don't accept defeat, they just try and blame other people for sabotaging their project. This is pretty much inbuilt in to the psychology of the hard left. There are some exceptions of course, but my general experience is that in changing their views people abandon the psychology of the hard left entirely and become moderates but this is something that happens individually and not en masse.
Starmer is unlikely to be acceptable to the Corbynites. He is an establishment figure. The next labour leader, of the list above, would be either John McDonnell, Clive Lewis or Emily Thornberry, they are affilliated to Corbyn.
A better bet would be simply on the wholesale decline of the labour party given the current dynamics within the party, ie less than 20% of the vote share as mentioned yesterday
McDonnell or Thornberry yes, after Lewis backed Trident he is no longer fully in the Corbyn camp
Thornberry would probably be the best bet for Labour because she'd be more capable of getting under the Tories' skin than anyone else in the party.
I don't know what Ben Bradshaw's evidence is, but I would be surprised if Russia's propaganda machine was not active, both in Brexit and in Sindy.
Russia wants to see the destabilisation, if not the breakup, of the UK, of the EU, and of NATO.
By what mechanism Russia acts, who knows. The list of Putin fans is long and seems to be growing: Trump, Farage, Corbyn. But are they sympathisers, stooges or worse? And I recall recently seeing that Pravda was planning to open operations in Scotland of all places. Not difficult to reason why.
A friend with contacts in the intelligence service tells me that Aaron Banks may have some interesting connections...
Quite right. You'd have to be naive verging on the half-witted to think that Russia hadn't attempted to help bring about Scottish independence and Brexit. The only questions are: how much effort did they put in and did it make a difference?
And thinking about: the Panama Papers didn't exactly destroy David Cameron, but were hugely distracting at the worst possible moment for Remain - right at the start of the referendum campaign. I believe the identity of that 'whistle blower' was never established.
On topic. Keir Starmer will not be the next labour leader. 1) The leader is elected through OMOV, Corbyn will not change this. 2) The membership are emphatically pro left, pro Corbyn. Even after the attempts by the right to fix the last election by limiting the selectorate, Corbyn still won emphatically. 3) The trade union leadership supports Corbyn, the trade union members who are active also support Corbyn. 4) In my experience the Corbynites by and large don't accept defeat, they just try and blame other people for sabotaging their project. This is pretty much inbuilt in to the psychology of the hard left. There are some exceptions of course, but my general experience is that in changing their views people abandon the psychology of the hard left entirely and become moderates but this is something that happens individually and not en masse.
Starmer is unlikely to be acceptable to the Corbynites. He is an establishment figure. The next labour leader, of the list above, would be either John McDonnell, Clive Lewis or Emily Thornberry, they are affilliated to Corbyn.
A better bet would be simply on the wholesale decline of the labour party given the current dynamics within the party, ie less than 20% of the vote share as mentioned yesterday
McDonnell or Thornberry yes, after Lewis backed Trident he is no longer fully in the Corbyn camp
Thornberry would probably be the best bet for Labour because she'd be more capable of getting under the Tories' skin than anyone else in the party.
LOL. She'd be the British version of Hillary with her "Basket of Deplorables" speech, the Tories would love her just as much as we love Corbyn at the moment!
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
I'm a Remainer and a Trump supporter and am looking forward to a new dawn in relations with Russia. (Actually just taking us back to the pre Iraq war 'with us or against us' era would count as a major breakthrough.)
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
I have a question for the well informed folks hear on PB that is sort of on topic:
I noticed quite a few comments on Labour List in the last few days are clamming that the Labour party membership now stands at 640,000. This surprised me, I'm not saying it is wrong, Just more than I had had thought.
Has anybody else noticed this finger? and if so do they know where it came from, as in has there been a Press Release with it on? or leaked official fingers?
"Why can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton.
Imagine if Putin had been caught saying that.
Quite.
Similarly most of Russia's transgressions are simply holding up a mirror to Western actions that they regard as hypocritical. Is it legitimate for the US to attempt to influence the political process in Russia or Ukraine?
Correct. Letting something sit for a week or two would screw you up, would have to be a day or two at most.
It should be possible in sports to turn over very quickly, e.g. Football match where one team is 4-0 up with a minute of injury time to play. I wonder if @iSam has done something similar, he's said here before that his syndicate spend high five figures on the football every Saturday.
Of course, statistically one in a hundred correctly-priced 1/100 shots will screw up too!
4-0 up with a minute left in injury time, the 1.01 won't be available - for sure.
Most 1.01 sports bets do actually have a small element of possible failure though. In tennis for instance I believe you're generally better off laying the 1.01s rather than backing. This bet doesn't.
I might do a dummy run on this with next weekend's sport, see how it goes!
The difficulties would be finding sufficient liquidity at the right time, having the balls to stick to the 1.01 or 1.02 strategy (no 1.05 or 1.1 'dead certs', 'cos doing that WILL kill you) and of course finding the £100k float in the first place - no point doing it with any less, you'd need to be on it full time.
An interesting thought experiment.
Hmm. Interesting.
Probably best to run the model on betfair's historical data.
If you've got an edge over the stats guys then it can be quite profitable. A lot of people think they do. Very few actually do.
Wow, just went digging on Betfair apps and found the historical data app - never knew that existed, taking a look through that will be easier than dummy playing live sport for half of Saturday!
As you say there's a lot of pro stats guys that will try and do the same, with big brains and big spreadsheets - but would I be playing against them or playing with them against all the other mugs out there?
All moot really though, as I don't have £100k burning a hole in the bank account right now, and if I did I'd pay off the mortgage with it!
Why would you pay off the mortgage? Interest rates are historically low
You're completely right of course, I'd much rather be a pro gambler or flipping and shipping supercars - but at the end of the day marital harmony dictates working for a living and paying off debts with windfalls. Ho hum!
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
I like the fact Putin is slaughtering ISIS, to be honest. Also, he's realised that supporting Assad makes more sense in the face of Islamism.
It's a pity he's a ruthless autocrat, but then the President of the USA is happy to vapourise perceived enemies without trial in foreign countries.
"Why can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton.
Imagine if Putin had been caught saying that.
He's hasn't, because there's nothing like a free press left in Russia.
I know? you're joking, but comparing Hillary with Putin is simply primary school relativism.
To be expected from a Corbyn, but not from someone who makes his living from freedom of expression.
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
I like the fact Putin is slaughtering ISIS, to be honest. Also, he's realised that supporting Assad makes more sense in the face of Islamism.
It's a pity he's a ruthless autocrat, but then the President of the USA is happy to vapourise perceived enemies without trial in foreign countries.
"Why can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton.
Imagine if Putin had been caught saying that.
Not sure that Russia is slaughtering IS, I think IS had no part in the battle for Alleppo, though the anti Assad forces there are are pretty Islamist. The pictures from West Alleppo show a functioning modern city, as do those from Damascas etc. The bombed out ruins inhabited by the Black niqabs is the anti government bit.
I don't think Russia has a grand strategy at present, just a number of tactical moves to break up tbe UK, the EU, the NAFTA, to cause a trade war between China and US, and to gain influence in the Middle East by bringing down pro Saudi organisations. I think the view from Moscow is that weakening others is easier than becoming stronger. I also think that they risk major blowback, by encouraging such instability in the world.
The first Brexit betrayal will be against Farage when Trump turns out to be quite keen on the EU.
Trump has been pretty clear in his position on Brexit and the EU. I doubt that will change!
I couldn't give a flying **** if it does change. It's none of America's business. Or is it ok for America to meddle with UK domestic politics but not Russia? Should we perhaps have an approved list?
On topic. Keir Starmer will not be the next labour leader. 1) The leader is elected through OMOV, Corbyn will not change this. 2) The membership are emphatically pro left, pro Corbyn. Even after the attempts by the right to fix the last election by limiting the selectorate, Corbyn still won emphatically. 3) The trade union leadership supports Corbyn, the trade union members who are active also support Corbyn. 4) In my experience the Corbynites by and large don't accept defeat, they just try and blame other people for sabotaging their project. This is pretty much inbuilt in to the psychology of the hard left. There are some exceptions of course, but my general experience is that in changing their views people abandon the psychology of the hard left entirely and become moderates but this is something that happens individually and not en masse.
Starmer is unlikely to be acceptable to the Corbynites. He is an establishment figure. The next labour leader, of the list above, would be either John McDonnell, Clive Lewis or Emily Thornberry, they are affilliated to Corbyn.
A better bet would be simply on the wholesale decline of the labour party given the current dynamics within the party, ie less than 20% of the vote share as mentioned yesterday
McDonnell or Thornberry yes, after Lewis backed Trident he is no longer fully in the Corbyn camp
Thornberry would probably be the best bet for Labour because she'd be more capable of getting under the Tories' skin than anyone else in the party.
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
I like the fact Putin is slaughtering ISIS, to be honest. Also, he's realised that supporting Assad makes more sense in the face of Islamism.
It's a pity he's a ruthless autocrat, but then the President of the USA is happy to vapourise perceived enemies without trial in foreign countries.
"Why can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton.
Imagine if Putin had been caught saying that.
Not sure that Russia is slaughtering IS, I think IS had no part in the battle for Alleppo, though the anti Assad forces there are are pretty Islamist. The pictures from West Alleppo show a functioning modern city, as do those from Damascas etc. The bombed out ruins inhabited by the Black niqabs is the anti government bit.
I don't think Russia has a grand strategy at present, just a number of tactical moves to break up tbe UK, the EU, the NAFTA, to cause a trade war between China and US, and to gain influence in the Middle East by bringing down pro Saudi organisations. I think the view from Moscow is that weakening others is easier than becoming stronger. I also think that they risk major blowback, by encouraging such instability in the world.
Talk me through America's "grand strategy" then. Other than a cack-handed attempt to further America's interests, which has generally gone wrong in the Middle East?
Um....
I don't disagree, and Britain hasn't had much of a strategy in foreign policy either, apart from Brexit, but Brexit to where.
The whole world looks pretty rudderless, bar China perhaps.
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
I like the fact Putin is slaughtering ISIS, to be honest. Also, he's realised that supporting Assad makes more sense in the face of Islamism.
It's a pity he's a ruthless autocrat, but then the President of the USA is happy to vapourise perceived enemies without trial in foreign countries.
"Why can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton.
Imagine if Putin had been caught saying that.
Not sure that Russia is slaughtering IS, I think IS had no part in the battle for Alleppo, though the anti Assad forces there are are pretty Islamist. The pictures from West Alleppo show a functioning modern city, as do those from Damascas etc. The bombed out ruins inhabited by the Black niqabs is the anti government bit.
I don't think Russia has a grand strategy at present, just a number of tactical moves to break up tbe UK, the EU, the NAFTA, to cause a trade war between China and US, and to gain influence in the Middle East by bringing down pro Saudi organisations. I think the view from Moscow is that weakening others is easier than becoming stronger. I also think that they risk major blowback, by encouraging such instability in the world.
Talk me through America's "grand strategy" then. Other than a cack-handed attempt to further America's interests, which has generally gone wrong in the Middle East?
Um....
Think you've missed the point. It's not necessary to rate US strategy to decry Russia's poor execution of one.
Having said that, it's trendy right now to talk down Putin as a mere tactician. But Russia seems to be further ahead in its aims than any other world power at the moment, save China.
Edit: and Russia would be delighted if the UK were to break up. We have been a thorn in their side, in the Security Council, and in the European Defence context, for a long time. Once again then, I can't figure out why some Brexiters - supposedly patriots - seem very warm to Putin.
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
I like the fact Putin is slaughtering ISIS, to be honest. Also, he's realised that supporting Assad makes more sense in the face of Islamism.
It's a pity he's a ruthless autocrat, but then the President of the USA is happy to vapourise perceived enemies without trial in foreign countries.
"Why can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton.
Imagine if Putin had been caught saying that.
Not sure that Russia is slaughtering IS, I think IS had no part in the battle for Alleppo, though the anti Assad forces there are are pretty Islamist. The pictures from West Alleppo show a functioning modern city, as do those from Damascas etc. The bombed out ruins inhabited by the Black niqabs is the anti government bit.
I don't think Russia has a grand strategy at present, just a number of tactical moves to break up tbe UK, the EU, the NAFTA, to cause a trade war between China and US, and to gain influence in the Middle East by bringing down pro Saudi organisations. I think the view from Moscow is that weakening others is easier than becoming stronger. I also think that they risk major blowback, by encouraging such instability in the world.
Talk me through America's "grand strategy" then. Other than a cack-handed attempt to further America's interests, which has generally gone wrong in the Middle East?
Um....
'America First' I believe once The Orange One takes over in January
This thread appears to have been populated by people who will never have a girlfriend.
(Joke)
Just take a minute to look at the banner at the top of the page...
Xero Accounting Software ?
xm.com forex for me ...
Back to Christmas in ridiculous places. Currently in Karachi. Hotel has installed the Christmas tree, the snowy Christmas village with steam train, and flying Santa in a sled pulled by reindeer some 10' above the village. And three musicians singing religious carols to a drum machine.
I have a question for the well informed folks hear on PB that is sort of on topic:
I noticed quite a few comments on Labour List in the last few days are clamming that the Labour party membership now stands at 640,000. This surprised me, I'm not saying it is wrong, Just more than I had had thought.
Has anybody else noticed this finger? and if so do they know where it came from, as in has there been a Press Release with it on? or leaked official fingers?
There were over 500 000 individual votes cast in the summer leadership contest, though around 40% were affliates and registered supporters willing to spend £25 on a vote.
the figure of 640 000 Members etc is quite plausible.
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
The interference in the election took the form of a massive leak of stolen documents. The lesson from that is not to write a vast cache of emails about all the naughty stuff you are getting up to.
Strangely when pretty much the same actors (Wikileaks et al) were leaking a massive cache of stolen documents undermine a Republican administration they were The Saviours of the World (TM M. Cicero). The Russian links were fairly clear back then as well....
Oh, and for the record I was anti-Assange when he was a hero and anti-Assange still... and Putin is a scumbag.
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
I like the fact Putin is slaughtering ISIS, to be honest. Also, he's realised that supporting Assad makes more sense in the face of Islamism.
It's a pity he's a ruthless autocrat, but then the President of the USA is happy to vapourise perceived enemies without trial in foreign countries.
"Why can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton.
Imagine if Putin had been caught saying that.
Not sure that Russia is slaughtering IS, I think IS had no part in the battle for Alleppo, though the anti Assad forces there are are pretty Islamist. The pictures from West Alleppo show a functioning modern city, as do those from Damascas etc. The bombed out ruins inhabited by the Black niqabs is the anti government bit.
I don't think Russia has a grand strategy at present, just a number of tactical moves to break up tbe UK, the EU, the NAFTA, to cause a trade war between China and US, and to gain influence in the Middle East by bringing down pro Saudi organisations. I think the view from Moscow is that weakening others is easier than becoming stronger. I also think that they risk major blowback, by encouraging such instability in the world.
Talk me through America's "grand strategy" then. Other than a cack-handed attempt to further America's interests, which has generally gone wrong in the Middle East?
Um....
'America First' I believe once The Orange One takes over in January
It has the advantage of honesty.
Yes nobody can complain when Trumpism does what it says on the tin
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
Well, speaking personally, I find nothing attractive.
But at the same time I find little attractive in the childish way in which the West approaches international relations - and doesn't seem to understand the impact of it's geopolitical actions. Pushing towards the Russian border with Nato and the EU was bound to provoke.
Doesn't justify the response, of course, but the childishly righteous-spectacles with which many seem to think international relations works hopefully be replaced by the uncertainties of Brexit and Trump.
I have a question for the well informed folks hear on PB that is sort of on topic:
I noticed quite a few comments on Labour List in the last few days are clamming that the Labour party membership now stands at 640,000. This surprised me, I'm not saying it is wrong, Just more than I had had thought.
Has anybody else noticed this finger? and if so do they know where it came from, as in has there been a Press Release with it on? or leaked official fingers?
There were over 500 000 individual votes cast in the summer leadership contest, though around 40% were affliates and registered supporters willing to spend £25 on a vote.
the figure of 640 000 Members etc is quite plausible.
Having said that, it's trendy right now to talk down Putin as a mere tactician. But Russia seems to be further ahead in its aims than any other world power at the moment, save China.
What were Russia's aims under Putin when he first became President? Among others they were to join the WTO, join or collaborate with the Western defence architecture, pursue economic integration with the EU...
This was Putin speaking in 2001 to the German Parliament:
Today we must say once and for all: the Cold War is done with! We have entered a new stage of development. We understand that without a modern, sound and sustainable security architecture we will never be able to create an atmosphere of trust on the continent, and without that atmosphere of trust there can be no united Greater Europe! Today we must say that we renounce our stereotypes and ambitions and from now on will jointly work for the security of the people of Europe and the world as a whole.
It was the Bush-Blair Iraq war and the 'with us or against us' doctrine that destroyed the potential for a relationship with Russia based on trust. Subsequently NATO was expanded into the Baltic states and many measures were taken to try to clip Russia's wings.
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
Well, speaking personally, I find nothing attractive.
But at the same time I find little attractive in the childish way in which the West approaches international relations - and doesn't seem to understand the impact of it's geopolitical actions. Pushing towards the Russian border with Nato and the EU was bound to provoke.
Doesn't justify the response, of course, but the childishly righteous-spectacles with which many seem to think international relations works hopefully be replaced by the uncertainties of Brexit and Trump.
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
I like the fact Putin is slaughtering ISIS, to be honest. Also, he's realised that supporting Assad makes more sense in the face of Islamism.
It's a pity he's a ruthless autocrat, but then the President of the USA is happy to vapourise perceived enemies without trial in foreign countries.
"Why can't we just drone the guy?" - Hillary Clinton.
Imagine if Putin had been caught saying that.
Not sure that Russia is slaughtering IS, I think IS had no part in the battle for Alleppo, though the anti Assad forces there are are pretty Islamist. The pictures from West Alleppo show a functioning modern city, as do those from Damascas etc. The bombed out ruins inhabited by the Black niqabs is the anti government bit.
I don't think Russia has a grand strategy at present, just a number of tactical moves to break up tbe UK, the EU, the NAFTA, to cause a trade war between China and US, and to gain influence in the Middle East by bringing down pro Saudi organisations. I think the view from Moscow is that weakening others is easier than becoming stronger. I also think that they risk major blowback, by encouraging such instability in the world.
Talk me through America's "grand strategy" then. Other than a cack-handed attempt to further America's interests, which has generally gone wrong in the Middle East?
Um....
Think you've missed the point. It's not necessary to rate US strategy to decry Russia's poor execution of one.
Having said that, it's trendy right now to talk down Putin as a mere tactician. But Russia seems to be further ahead in its aims than any other world power at the moment, save China.
Edit: and Russia would be delighted if the UK were to break up. We have been a thorn in their side, in the Security Council, and in the European Defence context, for a long time. Once again then, I can't figure out why some Brexiters - supposedly patriots - seem very warm to Putin.
The basket-case of a Russian economy, as Robert often reminds us, suggests entirely otherwise.
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
The interference in the election took the form of a massive leak of stolen documents. The lesson from that is not to write a vast cache of emails about all the naughty stuff you are getting up to.
Strangely when pretty much the same actors (Wikileaks et al) were leaking a massive cache of stolen documents undermine a Republican administration they were The Saviours of the World (TM M. Cicero). The Russian links were fairly clear back then as well....
Oh, and for the record I was anti-Assange when he was a hero and anti-Assange still... and Putin is a scumbag.
I think one big takeaway from politics his year is to be very careful about what gets written down, and how communications systems work. Email should be assumed to be public and treated accordingly.
With all the money in politics in the US, the DNC really should have been able to get an encrypted mail server with whitelisted devices for the key members of staff - didn't they learn anything from Hillary's email scandal?
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
Similarly, some Brexiters seems strangely complacent about the attempted interference by Russia in the political system of the USA. As reported by the CIA. I recall Yokel? on here just before the US election warning that a whole load was about to come out about Trump and Russia. Presume he was referring to the delayed CIA report.
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
Well, speaking personally, I find nothing attractive.
But at the same time I find little attractive in the childish way in which the West approaches international relations - and doesn't seem to understand the impact of it's geopolitical actions. Pushing towards the Russian border with Nato and the EU was bound to provoke.
Doesn't justify the response, of course, but the childishly righteous-spectacles with which many seem to think international relations works hopefully be replaced by the uncertainties of Brexit and Trump.
You welcome uncertainty?
Not really a conservative then.
I welcome being a grown up.
Our current approach to geopolitics is often anything but grown up. Especially the topical media driven agenda.
Comments
http://order-order.com/2016/12/13/top-tory-arrested-child-porn-images/
So Mr Eagles has voted for him?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Central_by-election,_2012
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies
Back to Christmas in ridiculous places. Currently in Karachi. Hotel has installed the Christmas tree, the snowy Christmas village with steam train, and flying Santa in a sled pulled by reindeer some 10' above the village. And three musicians singing religious carols to a drum machine.
All in all, this points to Starmer being on the money. But you're right. It does depend on how Leavers see it.
Who does more damage to Western democracy - the Russians or the sore losers who excuse their own failures by blaming Russian interference?
As Obama himself said in an interview yesterday, Russians have been trying to influence US elections for decades, there was no evidence of anything more than propaganda though - the election process itself was all above board (even if it did take them ages to finish counting!!).
X is a self deceiving idiot.
I *think* it will be just past the new year now, which makes the 1.01 on Clinton PV exceptional value.
That actually makes me think that it should be possible to find these 1.01 prices in a lot of places, for results that are basically foregone conclusions. I wonder if one started a year with a float of say £100k they could double their money 1% at a time, over a year, without screwing it up and zeroing out?
I believe that nervousness amongst some Leave voters about the consequences of EU withdrawal revolves mainly around economic performance and jobs. If you are hard-up to begin with, don't have a particularly good job, and feel that you are up against competition from workers from low wage EU countries if you are looking for work, then you're presumably much more likely to retain your enthusiasm for getting out of the EU regardless of whether the process of leaving is smooth or not. We should also avoid making the automatic assumption that any bumps in the road will be blamed primarily on the UK Government, rather than on the behaviour of the EU.
Therefore, I still don't see how Labour reconciles the two diametrically opposed positions to the EU amongst its voter base. A large chunk of the old core vote wants rid of it, is really pleased with the referendum result, and wishes to see it implemented in full; yet much of the liberal left is distraught to be leaving. If Labour doesn't want to lose the loyalty of both sides, then presumably it is going to have to back one of them in the end?
I wonder how many of the 44% fall into that number.
Some anonymous bloke on the internet bringing up an anecdotal anonymous cousin barely makes it as an argument, let alone a credible one.
Mind you as he's only a knight of the realm he may be too shabby for the likes of McCluskey to hobnob with anyway.
Labour has to fracture soon. It's too daft to be a proper party now.
If we get Farage launching something too then we'll get two new parties. That surely must be an enormous opportunity for Farron and the LDs. So I expect they'll split too in those circumstances just to maintain the tradition.
It should be possible in sports to turn over very quickly, e.g. Football match where one team is 4-0 up with a minute of injury time to play. I wonder if @iSam has done something similar, he's said here before that his syndicate spend high five figures on the football every Saturday.
Of course, statistically one in a hundred correctly-priced 1/100 shots will screw up too!
Most 1.01 sports bets do actually have a small element of possible failure though. In tennis for instance I believe you're generally better off laying the 1.01s rather than backing. This bet doesn't.
I hesitate to speak for malcolmg, but I seem to recall one of his motivations in the EU vote was sticking it right up Cameron & Osborne. On that basis he got some pretty major bangs for his voting buck.
On Russia: it appears that Graham and McCain, those renowned Democrats are concerned about Russian influence in the US Presidential Election. Although I know that for many Trump supporters, it's not legitimate to oppose him from the right or the left. Meanwhile, I see he is filling his cabinet with CEOs, and those from Goldman Sachs. So that swamp is definitely being drained then.
Watching Trump surrogates in the media - particularly on CNN - Kayleigh McEnany, Jeffery Lord etc - defend his choices should certainly be interesting in these coming years.
Among Sindy voters, EU 'Remain' won 59-41. That was a weaker showing than the unionist vote which was 64-36 for Remain.
That's a sizeable set of Sindys who see membership of the EU as inconsistent with Scottish independence though, and the unionists aren't siding with Sturgeon on Scotland/UK. She would appear to be better off just leaving the whole thing alone.
The difficulties would be finding sufficient liquidity at the right time, having the balls to stick to the 1.01 or 1.02 strategy (no 1.05 or 1.1 'dead certs', 'cos doing that WILL kill you) and of course finding the £100k float in the first place - no point doing it with any less, you'd need to be on it full time.
An interesting thought experiment.
Probably best to run the model on betfair's historical data.
If you've got an edge over the stats guys then it can be quite profitable. A lot of people think they do. Very few actually do.
https://twitter.com/tpgcolson/status/808767036088348673
As you say there's a lot of pro stats guys that will try and do the same, with big brains and big spreadsheets - but would I be playing against them or playing with them against all the other mugs out there?
All moot really though, as I don't have £100k burning a hole in the bank account right now, and if I did I'd pay off the mortgage with it!
Keir Starmer will not be the next labour leader.
1) The leader is elected through OMOV, Corbyn will not change this.
2) The membership are emphatically pro left, pro Corbyn. Even after the attempts by the right to fix the last election by limiting the selectorate, Corbyn still won emphatically.
3) The trade union leadership supports Corbyn, the trade union members who are active also support Corbyn.
4) In my experience the Corbynites by and large don't accept defeat, they just try and blame other people for sabotaging their project. This is pretty much inbuilt in to the psychology of the hard left. There are some exceptions of course, but my general experience is that in changing their views people abandon the psychology of the hard left entirely and become moderates but this is something that happens individually and not en masse.
Starmer is unlikely to be acceptable to the Corbynites. He is an establishment figure.
The next labour leader, of the list above, would be either John McDonnell, Clive Lewis or Emily Thornberry, they are affilliated to Corbyn.
A better bet would be simply on the wholesale decline of the labour party given the current dynamics within the party, ie less than 20% of the vote share as mentioned yesterday
Russia wants to see the destabilisation, if not the breakup, of the UK, of the EU, and of NATO.
By what mechanism Russia acts, who knows. The list of Putin fans is long and seems to be growing: Trump, Farage, Corbyn. But are they sympathisers, stooges or worse? And I recall recently seeing that Pravda was planning to open operations in Scotland of all places. Not difficult to reason why.
A friend with contacts in the intelligence service tells me that Aaron Banks may have some interesting connections...
Watch the Red Brexiteers, Burnham and Benn have both been making noises about immigration and pro-intervention in industry. That is pretty Old Labour, and something that returns full circle to Keir Hardie rather than Kier Starmer!
I don't think it will be either of those two, but that is the way the wind is blowing. I think Jezza will stick around too long for me to take a dip in this market.
Con gain Bootle.
Remainers seem to be especially worried about Russia. The old enemy?
Are Remainers just fond of living in the stable and predictable past?
There's not much to like about Putin's Russia. Murdering journalists and downing passenger jets for starters. What is it exactly about Putin that some Brexiters find so attractive?
Regardless, I have been very impressed with him.
I noticed quite a few comments on Labour List in the last few days are clamming that the Labour party membership now stands at 640,000. This surprised me, I'm not saying it is wrong, Just more than I had had thought.
Has anybody else noticed this finger? and if so do they know where it came from, as in has there been a Press Release with it on? or leaked official fingers?
Similarly most of Russia's transgressions are simply holding up a mirror to Western actions that they regard as hypocritical. Is it legitimate for the US to attempt to influence the political process in Russia or Ukraine?
I know? you're joking, but comparing Hillary with Putin is simply primary school relativism.
To be expected from a Corbyn, but not from someone who makes his living from freedom of expression.
'Huge concern' as teen moped crime in London rises
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38294358
I don't think Russia has a grand strategy at present, just a number of tactical moves to break up tbe UK, the EU, the NAFTA, to cause a trade war between China and US, and to gain influence in the Middle East by bringing down pro Saudi organisations. I think the view from Moscow is that weakening others is easier than becoming stronger. I also think that they risk major blowback, by encouraging such instability in the world.
The whole world looks pretty rudderless, bar China perhaps.
http://news.sky.com/story/russian-hackers-probably-swayed-brexit-vote-says-ben-bradshaw-mp-10694779
It's not necessary to rate US strategy to decry Russia's poor execution of one.
Having said that, it's trendy right now to talk down Putin as a mere tactician. But Russia seems to be further ahead in its aims than any other world power at the moment, save China.
Edit: and Russia would be delighted if the UK were to break up. We have been a thorn in their side, in the Security Council, and in the European Defence context, for a long time. Once again then, I can't figure out why some Brexiters - supposedly patriots - seem very warm to Putin.
the figure of 640 000 Members etc is quite plausible.
http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/labour-party-leadership-election-2016
Strangely when pretty much the same actors (Wikileaks et al) were leaking a massive cache of stolen documents undermine a Republican administration they were The Saviours of the World (TM M. Cicero). The Russian links were fairly clear back then as well....
Oh, and for the record I was anti-Assange when he was a hero and anti-Assange still... and Putin is a scumbag.
But at the same time I find little attractive in the childish way in which the West approaches international relations - and doesn't seem to understand the impact of it's geopolitical actions. Pushing towards the Russian border with Nato and the EU was bound to provoke.
Doesn't justify the response, of course, but the childishly righteous-spectacles with which many seem to think international relations works hopefully be replaced by the uncertainties of Brexit and Trump.
What was their last polling figure for VI?
*innocent face*
This was Putin speaking in 2001 to the German Parliament:
Today we must say once and for all: the Cold War is done with! We have entered a new stage of development. We understand that without a modern, sound and sustainable security architecture we will never be able to create an atmosphere of trust on the continent, and without that atmosphere of trust there can be no united Greater Europe! Today we must say that we renounce our stereotypes and ambitions and from now on will jointly work for the security of the people of Europe and the world as a whole.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21340
It was the Bush-Blair Iraq war and the 'with us or against us' doctrine that destroyed the potential for a relationship with Russia based on trust. Subsequently NATO was expanded into the Baltic states and many measures were taken to try to clip Russia's wings.
Not really a conservative then.
With all the money in politics in the US, the DNC really should have been able to get an encrypted mail server with whitelisted devices for the key members of staff - didn't they learn anything from Hillary's email scandal?
Our current approach to geopolitics is often anything but grown up. Especially the topical media driven agenda.